....there are absolutely human moments in there - like the farewell to Sallah or Shorty's rescue of Indy - and they do matter.

Human moments?

How about Indy putting the gag back on Marion?

Thirty plus years later that act still defies convention; it telegraphs the high stakes and re-kindles (for a moment) our doubt over Indy's morality/heroism in the spirit of the great Bogart movies. I'm sure Indy abandoning Marion still elicits a reflexive reaction among many first time viewers.*

*Notably, we're in a post-Game of Thrones world. So let's be honest. Only bad (correction: very bad) things happen to any character who is left bound and gagged by a potential rescuer in a hostile environment.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Raiders112390

It's more that, over the years, I've seen an intense, visceral hatred of the [KotCS], which I've never understood.

Guilty. Count me in with that group. And all I can say is that I'm not quite a Trekkie and I loved the Star Trek reboot -- which simply fuels my rage against KotCS because I know that a franchise revival after a long hiatus can be done right and extremely well.

Honestly, the hatred that this film receives upsets me terribly, along with the hatred directed toward George Lucas.

I mean, here you have a film series that is fueled by the nostalgia of both Spielberg and Lucas for the adventure films of their youth, a series that glorifies escapism in cinema and in doing so reminds why reminds us of the basic reasons why we love films and why they thrill us so.

But do today's audience ever think about this, of course not. To most people, Indiana Jones is merely a generic action film meant to kill time and sell tickets. The original trilogy came out at the right time, where audiences weren't so damn cynical that they had to nitpick every tiny little detail, you know, before the internet ruined film criticism. But even so, nobody cared about what inspired Spielberg and Lucas, they had their own reasons for enjoying the films, which is not necessarily a bad thing, but it definitely contributed to the hatred that Crystal Skull received. This especially becomes apparent when watching the various YouTube reviews. Was Raiders a great film because it resurrected the Saturday matinee serial? No it was because of "gritty realism" or some other nonsense, I guess Sergio Leone must have directed that film. What the hell is a Saturday Matinee serial after all? Were the ants in the film an homage to The Naked Jungle? No it was a ripoff of the Scarabs in The Mummy. Did anyone appreciate the irony of a 1930's adventurer trapped in a hostile 1950's suburban environment. No because you can't survive a nuclear bomb in a refrigerator.

Star wars suffered from the same problem. People of course enjoyed watching the original trilogy, but only a few realized just how much mythology and political events influenced the story. When the prequel trilogy came out, nobody cared about the elements of Greek Tragedy or historical influences, they instead paid attention to details that in the end hardly influenced the story. Which is why I hate The Force Awakens, it tries so hard to copy the style of the original trilogy and fails to reach the same amount of depth in the story. But of course since audiences care more about style than substance, they loved every minute of it.

I've just finished watching all four films again, and as I'm writing this, I have Crystal Skull playing in the background, and Damn it I love this entire series! As I've already mentioned, it reminds me why I love film and escapism, and Crystal Skull is a beautiful homage to 50's escapism. The internet can whine all they want about raped childhoods and all that nonsense, as for me, I'll continue to enjoy the series for exactly what it is.

Honestly, the hatred that this film receives upsets me terribly, along with the hatred directed toward George Lucas.

I mean, here you have a film series that is fueled by the nostalgia of both Spielberg and Lucas for the adventure films of their youth, a series that glorifies escapism in cinema and in doing so reminds why reminds us of the basic reasons why we love films and why they thrill us so.

But do today's audience ever think about this, of course not. To most people, Indiana Jones is merely a generic action film meant to kill time and sell tickets. The original trilogy came out at the right time, where audiences weren't so damn cynical that they had to nitpick every tiny little detail, you know, before the internet ruined film criticism. But even so, nobody cared about what inspired Spielberg and Lucas, they had their own reasons for enjoying the films, which is not necessarily a bad thing, but it definitely contributed to the hatred that Crystal Skull received. This especially becomes apparent when watching the various YouTube reviews. Was Raiders a great film because it resurrected the Saturday matinee serial? No it was because of "gritty realism" or some other nonsense, I guess Sergio Leone must have directed that film. What the hell is a Saturday Matinee serial after all? Were the ants in the film an homage to The Naked Jungle? No it was a ripoff of the Scarabs in The Mummy. Did anyone appreciate the irony of a 1930's adventurer trapped in a hostile 1950's suburban environment. No because you can't survive a nuclear bomb in a refrigerator.

Star wars suffered from the same problem. People of course enjoyed watching the original trilogy, but only a few realized just how much mythology and political events influenced the story. When the prequel trilogy came out, nobody cared about the elements of Greek Tragedy or historical influences, they instead paid attention to details that in the end hardly influenced the story. Which is why I hate The Force Awakens, it tries so hard to copy the style of the original trilogy and fails to reach the same amount of depth in the story. But of course since audiences care more about style than substance, they loved every minute of it.

I've just finished watching all four films again, and as I'm writing this, I have Crystal Skull playing in the background, and Damn it I love this entire series! As I've already mentioned, it reminds me why I love film and escapism, and Crystal Skull is a beautiful homage to 50's escapism. The internet can whine all they want about raped childhoods and all that nonsense, as for me, I'll continue to enjoy the series for exactly what it is.

Wise words. I subscribe and underline them. I agree with you.

I think we all are living in a world of extremes, if you get what I mean. Maybe it's the Internet era, I don't know. But the people talk very fast, very easy and it's like they don't think on the consequences. Behind those movies (Indy, Star Wars, etc) there are people who worked on it.

I love Indy 4 and the prequels of Star Wars, I think, like you, they are films to enjoy, not to be sad or angry. And, though I love them, I can understand people don't like Indy 4 (or the prequels or Star Wars). Truly. Everybody can't like the same things. Doesn't someone like Indy 4? I'm OK with it, seriously, it's normal. He isn't better than me... and I am not better than him. It's different points of view and likes, nothing more.

Even the matter would be interesting if the people who has a certain point of view could talk and interchange ideas with the other band of peoples (with another ideas, you know). But the problem is the extremism, the lack of respect we have in our world nowadays. And I don't understand the hatred, like you say, towards George Lucas or the movies. Doesn't someone like them? Perfect. But... Hate them? Why? It's only movies.

It's like some people think George Lucas has ruined their lives or something. Like if Spielberg or Lucas had come in their house and they had stab them in the back or something with a knife XD. I don't understand such an extremism, you know.

And the people, over the years, keeps blaming and complaining and criticizing. I don't understand. There are many movies I don't like, and I forget about them, simply. I don't keep writing on Internet or fighting with people to impose my opinion or discredit the directors. I think the people need to see the good side of things, to focus on positive things and let go the bad thoughts. I think there are many good things in the prequels of Star Wars or in Indy 4. The good things weight far more than the bad things to me. And if someone thinks those movies are not good, it's OK, but seriously, he maybe have to search other movies he can enjoy and don't focus on negative things. I don't think Lucas and Spielberg wanted the people to fight with their films. They wanted simply to give us escapism, fun and positive moments, nothing more. I'm sure they knew they was making a masterpiece or a philosophical movies (though I find many valuable and good lessons in those movies).

It's like Internet had turned the release of those movies in a war and in a matter of life and death.

I don't know if I could explain well myself. I'm not a native speaker of English and I beg your pardon for my errors. I would like the world was a more positive place sometimes, nothing more. I think Indy films are a gift, a thing to enjoy and cheer ourselves up, and I have to take pleasure of them.

They wanted simply to give us escapism, fun and positive moments, nothing more. I'm sure they knew they was making a masterpiece or a philosophical movies (though I find many valuable and good lessons in those movies).

Sorry, I wanted to say: "I'm sure they knew they WASN'T making a masterpiece...".

All I'm saying is that I think the film had a specific goal, to pay homage to 1950's b films and that most people didn't care or notice. I recall watching many YouTube rants against the film, and this aspect was rarely mentioned. I've stated in my post why I believe this is a great film and also gave my opinion as to why people are so hard on the film, which is the title of the subject after all.

Whether people enjoy the film or not is of course an individual choice. I can certainly understand why some people would dislike this film and by extension the Star wars Prequels. But I do believe that had the film been released before the popularity of the internet it wouldn't have been so scrutinized. And even if it was hated, it would have been at least given a chance to heal the same way Temple of Doom was.

All I'm saying is that I think the film had a specific goal, to pay homage to 1950's b films and that most people didn't care or notice.

Considering that the movie being an homage on some level to 50s pulp fiction was incredibly overt, I'm curious to know on what basis you've concluded that this was lost on "most people." It doesn't reflect well on the movie you're defending when your defense amounts to sweeping statements about the audience.

Considering that the movie being an homage on some level to 50s pulp fiction was incredibly overt, I'm curious to know on what basis you've concluded that this was lost on "most people." It doesn't reflect well on the movie you're defending when your defense amounts to sweeping statements about the audience.

Let me give you one specific example. I recall in 2008 seeing one particularly angry YouTube reviewer. This guy shoved the camera in his face and went on a long profanity ridden rant about how terrible the film was. Out of curiosity I took a look at the comment section to find of course that most people agreed with everything he was saying. There were of course some defenders of the film, one in particular mentioned the fact that Lucas was inspired by Saturday matinee serials and b movies. The reviewer responded by asking him what he was talking about and he asked and I quote, "since when has Indiana Jones ever been a tribute to b movies?" And like I said, most of these YouTube reviewers didn't mention the b movie homage, and one other reviewer accused the ant scene of being a ripoff of the scarabs from the mummy, even though Lucas himself mentioned that it was an homage to The Naked Jungle. I have also spoken to many people who were also unaware of the inspiration behind the Indiana Jones fils

I'm sure there are of course, some people who did notice Spielberg and Lucas' intentions and still disliked the film, you seem to be one of them, and that's fine. But I find that most people hated the film for superficial reasons, rather than digging deep. I think the movie Shrek was vastly overrated, but I like to think at least I understand what it was trying to do.

I think he does have a point. The Internet in general has made it so that that we DO overthink these things. We do nitpick and rip apart films in a way that pre-Internet might not have been the case. I mean, imagine the reaction to Temple of Doom in a pre-Internet age? Or the deficiencies in Last Crusade? I think reactions to films are exaggerated (both good and bad) compared to what they once were. Everyone wants to be an armchair professional critic and nitpick about the themes, motifs etc of a film as if they're Siskel or Ebert...I do think blaming the Internet/Internet culture in general in part for the reaction KOTCS got has merit. The Internet is a great place for some things, but it's also a very toxic place, full of anger...And then you have a lot of people who are Generation X who hold as sacred relics the movies they grew up on and are very averse to change of any sort. Like, the amount of hatred toward the new Ghostbusters film, for example, before it even came out was intense and visceral purely because it was different; because it wasn't the same as it was in the 1980s. Because it had an all-girl cast. To say that Internet nitpicky culture had no part in the reaction KOTCS got I think is a tad unfair. Kingdom came out in a much different age than the original three did.

Again, the war you want to wage with "nitpickers" doesn't actually defend the movie.

avidfilmbuff, what I'm getting from your posts is that between Youtubers and the "many people" you've spoken to, you believe you have enough anecdotal evidence to make a judgment call about a majority of the audience. And what I'm telling you is, that's unconvincing at best and inane at worst.

Even if it wasn't though, even if you could somehow demonstrably show us that your perception of the majority of the film-going public is accurate, it still exposes an interest in judging the audience over the film itself.

It's become a trend in this thread. The critics of Crystal Skull just aren't watching the movie right! Maybe if those mouthbreathers would lighten up, or stop demanding all their movies be "Nolan-esque" (??) or had the insight to appreciate that it's a 50s homage (nevermind that it literally features a 50s style flying saucer), they would join the ranks of the enlightened!

It feels like a lot of tap-dancing in the name of avoiding an examination of the film itself. It is thus not really in keeping with the topic.

Again, the war you want to wage with "nitpickers" doesn't actually defend the movie.

avidfilmbuff, what I'm getting from your posts is that between Youtubers and the "many people" you've spoken to, you believe you have enough anecdotal evidence to make a judgment call about a majority of the audience. And what I'm telling you is, that's unconvincing at best and inane at worst.

Even if it wasn't though, even if you could somehow demonstrably show us that your perception of the majority of the film-going public is accurate, it still exposes an interest in judging the audience over the film itself.

It's become a trend in this thread. The critics of Crystal Skull just aren't watching the movie right! Maybe if those mouthbreathers would lighten up, or stop demanding all their movies be "Nolan-esque" (??) or had the insight to appreciate that it's a 50s homage (nevermind that it literally features a 50s style flying saucer), they would join the ranks of the enlightened!

It feels like a lot of tap-dancing in the name of avoiding an examination of the film itself. It is thus not really in keeping with the topic.

I have examined the films, and I have discussed why I believe they are great in other threads a long time ago. The title of this thread, however is "Why are people so hard on Indy IV?" And I did my best to answer that question, and in doing so i gave my opinion on the audience, and I never once implied that these people were somehow inferior to me.

And of course I understand that different people dislike the film for a variety of different reasons, I even mentioned that some people who understand the film disliked it anyway, and that's fine.

Again, the war you want to wage with "nitpickers" doesn't actually defend the movie.
...
It feels like a lot of tap-dancing in the name of avoiding an examination of the film itself. It is thus not really in keeping with the topic.

Au contraire. The audience reaction is the topic of this thread, not the film itself. The subject is supposed to be about people, as in: "Why are people so hard on Indy IV?"

I have examined the films, and I have discussed why I believe they are great in other threads a long time ago. The title of this thread, however is "Why are people so hard on Indy IV?" And I did my best to answer that question, and in doing so i gave my opinion on the audience, and I never once implied that these people were somehow inferior to me.

You suggested that negative opinion of the film goes hand in hand with an ignorance of the movie's intentions. Since the movie wears its intentions on its sleeve, that is a bit demeaning, yeah.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stoo

"Why are people so hard on Indy IV?"

Sounds pretty distinct from a circlejerk about why modern audiences are wrongheaded nitpickers. If the content of the actual movie isn't a touchstone of the conversation, then the conversation is much broader than the topic you're quoting, at least to my way of thinking.

I think is absurd not to accept the power and the echo of Internet in this era. I am not saying Internet is a bad thing. But it's obvious to me that Internet is like a powerful amplifier of ideas and opinions. In the 80's you could comment Raiders with the neighbour. Today you can comment the film with every country you like and to write to millions of readers.

If there is a movie you don't like, you can say it over and over along the huge net. Why are people so hard with Indy 4? I don't know, but I bet without Internet they hadn't could be so hard. Even the people have power now to generate influence over some directors or companies (directly or not) with their opinions on the net. I repeat, I'm not saying if it's bad or good... I only say it happens.

Anyway, I don't think there is only a reason to the extreme criticizing to Indy 4. It's, probably, a mix of factors. But I feel weird when I see many complains which are exactly identical. I wonder if some people really think certain things about the movie or ifthey have been influenced.

I think is absurd not to accept the power and the echo of Internet in this era.

Did I overlook a person who asserted that the internet is not a powerful echo chamber? Not long ago we had Raiders11239 bemoaning that "People are acting like it's the worst film of all time!" in response to opinions that differed from his. Phantom viewpoints are easy to argue against.

If I've articulated myself badly, let me try again: If the argument is that Crystal Skull gets judged by a different criteria than the earlier movies, then we should be able to argue that using the movies themselves. Blaming the audience or the internet or a cultural shift only means something if you're demonstrating the double standard you think they're guilty of. Otherwise you're just levying an accusation.

In other words, cherry-picked Youtube dweebs and the "modern audience" (whoever they are) aren't here to answer for themselves. We have to make do with each other.

The only thing better than a KotCS defender defending KotCS on the basis that viewers miss the point ("It's a homage to 50's camp, it's supposed to be bad!")(see avidfilmbuff quote below) is a KotCS defender trying to infuse the film with actual meaning:

Quote:

Originally Posted by avidfilmbuff

Did anyone appreciate the irony of a 1930's adventurer trapped in a hostile 1950's suburban environment. No[.]

Irony in Doomtown? Granted, I'll give you man-out-of-time but let's not go too far. Indy was fairly domesticated in Raiders -- so seeing Indy in a suburban setting is nothing new. However, your observation has given me new insight.

Mutt swinging through the jungle? I'm simple and had simply dismissed the sequence as moronic. I suppose the sequence was actually intended as some clever Indy/Mutt time inversion/contraposition: if Indy is out of time in the 50's, then when the fists start flying we need to put the '50's greaser back in his father's era a la a 1930's Tarzan sequence. Brilliant.

Spalko's irrelevant-to-the-narrative mentalism? Clearly a subtle dig at the futility of the Soviet police state. Take that Stalin!

Mutt and Marion with the snake rope? On the surface there's a clever riff on Indy's snake aversion but I'm sure there's deeper meaning there that eludes me.

And Mutt crating and bringing that all important-to-the-narrative motorcycle to South America? I'm torn. This is either a subtle political statement on the need for NAFTA or foreshadowing uber-materialism of kid's from Shia's generation.

Indy and Marion getting married? Me? I thought it was a cheap cop-out way to end the film. I suppose I should now understand it as an ode to Eisenhower era conformity -- because Indy said it: "I like Ike!" Do I see Nixon somewhere in the shadows of that golden light infused church?

Ox's blathering? Beyond me.

The all white cast? Oh, that's right. This 2008 film is an homage to the 1950's where there were no minorities. Brilliant. Enjoy!

Quote:

Originally Posted by avidfilmbuff

The internet can whine all they want about raped childhoods and all that nonsense, as for me, I'll continue to enjoy the series for exactly what it is.

Quote:

Originally Posted by avidfilmbuff

All I'm saying is that I think the film had a specific goal, to pay homage to 1950's b films and that most people didn't care or notice.

Trust me. We noticed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by avidfilmbuff

And even if it was hated, it would have been at least given a chance to heal the same way Temple of Doom was.

Dude, trust me. Temple of Doom gets no breaks around here. That film could have been Indy at his prime. Instead he gets saddled with silly second rate sexist and racist content. The film is an embarrassment for reasons all its own.

The only thing better than a KotCS defender defending KotCS on the basis that viewers miss the point ("It's a homage to 50's camp, it's supposed to be bad!")(see avidfilmbuff quote below) is a KotCS defender trying to infuse the film with actual meaning

Dude, trust me. Temple of Doom gets no breaks around here. That film could have been Indy at his prime. Instead he gets saddled with silly second rate sexist and racist content. The film is an embarrassment for reasons all its own.

I defend Crystal Skull because I enjoyed it, just like I'm sure you would if you believed a particular film to be underrated. And I never said that all of those who criticize Crystal Skull weren't aware of the homage, only that I have seen and spoken to many who did not.

As for the nuclear bomb scene, I stand by what I wrote. A central theme in Crystal Skull is Indy and his struggle with the passage of time. At this point of his life, Indy is pretty much alone, he's lost his father his best friend, was betrayed by another friend, and has no family to call his own. And this new era is indeed hostile toward him and he feels as though he doesn't belong. Indy is a man of the 30's, in his youth he had it all, he was a hero. In this new world, he doesn't know who to trust and worst of all he is suspected of being a traitor by the very country that he fought so hard to defend. This is a common theme in many films from the 1950's as the public became caught in a web of fear and paranoia which was in turn fueled by the government, most famously by McCarthy. This theme is also prevalent when Spalko asserts that they will change the west into the east.

That being said, I don't believe that my analysis of the nuclear bomb scene is as ridiculous as you make it out to be. It also adds a certain level of creepiness to the scene. On the surface, the set appears cheerful, representing the ideal suburban neighborhood, but obviously it's inhabitants are not normal and there is a disturbing truth behind this apparently cheerful facade. And as the innocent Howdy doody theme plays deafeningly loud in the background, the bomb drops, this destroying this ideal 50's neighborhood.

Again, these were themes often explored in films, programs, books, etc in the 1950's and 60's. And it's these themes woven with the themes of an older Indiana Jones that make, in my opinion a very interesting film.

The problem is I don't know who "people" are. Hard to assume the position of a person or group who isn't defined. And if they were I wouldn't presume to speak for them. I can speak for myself, and in my case I feel I'm only as hard on the movie as it was hard on me. I expected a degree of diminishing returns from a fourth installment following a 19 year break, but I didn't expect something as sloppy as I got. My complaints don't include George Lucas hate or issues with the fridge. My beef is bad storytelling. And what does the magnifying effect of the internet have to do with that?

The problem is I don't know who "people" are. Hard to assume the position of a person or group who isn't defined. And if they were I wouldn't presume to speak for them. I can speak for myself, and in my case I feel I'm only as hard on the movie as it was hard on me. I expected a degree of diminishing returns from a fourth installment following a 19 year break, but I didn't expect something as sloppy as I got. My complaints don't include George Lucas hate or issues with the fridge. My beef is bad storytelling. And what does the magnifying effect of the internet have to do with that?

Yeah, and what you do is right. It's the correct thing to do, I think. I'm glad you tell your complaints, etc, without insult Lucas. And, though I love the movie, I can see your point too and understand your dissapoints. The other people... well I don't know their names either xD, though sometimes I've found people who automatically disrespect Indy 4 or Lucas. It's a fact to me there is overreaction. Indeed, sometimes is hard talk of the film without talk about "the bad Indy 4 is". I think, like I said, the film isn't perfect, but it has good things too. There are many interestings themes of conversation born from the movie beyond "I like it" or "I don't". But if you look on Internet, you'll see the big part of the net are bullying Indy 4. I don't say it is a masterpiece. I only say sure there is worse films but people don't take than seriously the matter, if I'm explaining myself right (it's difficult to me, sorry for my bad english).

I repeat, there people who don't make harm, even they don't like the film, they only say their opinion. I'm OK with that. I talk with you, we interchange opinions and it happens nothing. It's ok. The problem was the general overreaction in my opinion.

General overreaction where? On Youtube? I could just as easily point to the movie's positive initial reviews, its sizable box office haul, and the fact that it received a standing ovation at Cannes. Whose perception of general reaction is accurate?

General overreaction where? On Youtube? I could just as easily point to the movie's positive initial reviews, its sizable box office haul, and the fact that it received a standing ovation at Cannes. Whose perception of general reaction is accurate?

I'm not talking about Youtube (I didn't see any review on Youtube when Indy 4 was released, I only saw wrote reviews, opinions on forums or talked opinions). I've seen many overreaction on forums, blogs, even I encountered people in person who said that Indy 4 has busted the entire saga. Yes, you're right, there were many positive reviews, but don't forget the bad (there were many too, we must look the two sides of the coin). You have only to use Google and search reviews or opinions on forums. Make a balance.

Box office? Of course is good! But, from when is the box office a faithful reflex of certain opinions? Anyway, I think you're partly right in certain way. There were many positive reviews too and I'm glad for it.

I don't know, maybe it's my perception or my personal experience... Or maybe it's the bad opinions make more noise than the goods sometimes. All I know is in my personal experience I've encountered, in general, more bad opinions than good opinions (in Spanish forums too). Same matter with the prequels of Star Wars. Is everybody lost but me? XDD If you're right and the people liked the movie, better. That is something I would like In any case, I always take the good and positive reviews and opinions which help me to see new things on the film, enjoy it more or learn something.